Do you do find gay marriage repulsive?

[Jake]

If it was natural and meant to be men could have children with men. That can't happen, it's not natural.

There are better reasons to oppose it. Simply thinking gays should be disenfranchised is one of them.

[opebo]

Yes/No

If it was natural and meant to be men could have children with men. That can't happen, it's not natural.

Is masturbation 'unnatural'?

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Yes/No

If it was natural and meant to be men could have children with men. That can't happen, it's not natural.

Is masturbation 'unnatural'?

Do people marry their right hand?

[opebo]

Yes/No

If it was natural and meant to be men could have children with men. That can't happen, it's not natural.

Is masturbation 'unnatural'?

Do people marry their right hand?

In a sense.. of course in reality the relationship is much closer.

[Alcon]

What about marriages with no intention of child production?  Should they be illegal?

[Max Power]

If it was natural and meant to be men could have children with men. That can't happen, it's not natural.

There are better reasons to oppose it. Simply thinking gays should be disenfranchised is one of them.

Wow, you've really gone over the deep end recently.

[© tweed]

Yes/No.  And to cut off the comments about me being prejudice or discriminatory or cruel or unaccepting or anything else:  Yes, I know...
Also, Master Jedi summed up my main reason.

Yes/No

If it was natural and meant to be men could have children with men. That can't happen, it's not natural.

Also, by that logic, post-menopausal women should be forbidden from getting married.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

No/Don't Care it is a States Rights Issue

Do you think it's within the rights of one state to refuse to recognize a marriage granted in another?  That opens a huge can of worms.

I'd say that marriage recognition has such a huge impact on interstate trade (for example, consider the gay couple married and living in NJ, but one works in Philadelphia, and the other works in Wilmington, and they want to get marriage benefits in all three states) that Congress is within its rights to regulate that recognition under the Commerse Clause.

[KEmperor]

Yes/No

[CheeseWhiz]

Yes/Yes.

My personal feelings in the matter really shouldn't be the law - government's main job isn't to be the morality police, after all. Government best chase after the real crooks... you know, thieves, murderers, rapists, etc. Not to mention terrorists.

I pretty much agree with this.  Sorry to all gay posters here, I don't find you repulsive, and I think repulsive might be a little bit of a strong word, but the whole man/man or woman/woman thing kinda, well, gross.

[A18]

No/Don't Care it is a States Rights Issue

Do you think it's within the rights of one state to refuse to recognize a marriage granted in another? That opens a huge can of worms.

This has always been the case.

[A18]

I'd say that marriage recognition has such a huge impact on interstate trade (for example, consider the gay couple married and living in NJ, but one works in Philadelphia, and the other works in Wilmington, and they want to get marriage benefits in all three states) that Congress is within its rights to regulate that recognition under the Commerse Clause.

LOL

[J. J.]

Yes and yes, it should not be violation of  a law.

[Peter]

Yes/Yes.

My personal feelings in the matter really shouldn't be the law - government's main job isn't to be the morality police, after all. Government best chase after the real crooks... you know, thieves, murderers, rapists, etc. Not to mention terrorists.

I pretty much agree with this.  Sorry to all gay posters here, I don't find you repulsive, and I think repulsive might be a little bit of a strong word, but the whole man/man or woman/woman thing kinda, well, gross.

I don't think the question is asking whether you find the concept of gay sex repulsive (which I would expect most strictly heterosexual persons to answer yes to), but whether you find the concept of two gay persons living their lives together to be repulsive.

[CheeseWhiz]

Yes/Yes.

My personal feelings in the matter really shouldn't be the law - government's main job isn't to be the morality police, after all. Government best chase after the real crooks... you know, thieves, murderers, rapists, etc. Not to mention terrorists.

I pretty much agree with this. Sorry to all gay posters here, I don't find you repulsive, and I think repulsive might be a little bit of a strong word, but the whole man/man or woman/woman thing kinda, well, gross.

I don't think the question is asking whether you find the concept of gay sex repulsive (which I would expect most strictly heterosexual persons to answer yes to), but whether you find the concept of two gay persons living their lives together to be repulsive.

Okay, well then, no, not really.

[Emsworth]

Do you think it's within the rights of one state to refuse to recognize a marriage granted in another?

Perhaps not, because the full faith and credit clause is implicated when a state refuses to recognize that another state has ordained the marriage. Furthermore, a state cannot deny benefits to out-of-state couples merely on the grounds that they are from another state, under the privileges and immunities clause (of Article IV).

However, that does not mean that a state cannot deny benefits on other grounds. For example, Alabama cannot say "People wedded in Massachussetts will be denied benefits," but they can say "Same-sex couples 'wedded' anywhere will be denied benefits."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The commerce clause does not authorize the regulation of "anything remotely related to commerce" (which basically means "anything at all," because everything can be said to "have an impact" on interstate commerce). It only authorizes the regulation of commerce itself: "The Congress shall have Power ... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

Marriage may be remotely related to commerce, but it is not commerce.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

The commerce clause does not authorize the regulation of "anything remotely related to commerce" (which basically means "anything at all," because everything can be said to "have an impact" on interstate commerce). It only authorizes the regulation of commerce itself: "The Congress shall have Power ... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

Marriage may be remotely related to commerce, but it is not commerce.

By current judicial interpretations of the Commerce Clause (say what you like about it, it's still established law), the Commerce Clause does indeed apply in this case.  PA's and DE's recognition of a same sex marriage granted in NJ effects pension distibutions, health insurance, estate planning, and all sorts of other commercial activity, across state lines.  The Commerce Clause has been invoked to justify federal legislation on much flimsier grounds than this, and has been so for at least 70 years.

Has Commerce (I can never remember whether it's spelled with a c or an s, but maybe that's because I read too much UKian lit) been over-extended?  I certainly think so.  But under currently settled law, Congress does have the right to regulate this.

[Emsworth]

By current judicial interpretations of the Commerce Clause (say what you like about it, it's still established law), the Commerce Clause does indeed apply in this case.  PA's and DE's recognition of a same sex marriage granted in NJ effects pension distibutions, health insurance, estate planning, and all sorts of other commercial activity, across state lines.  The Commerce Clause has been invoked to justify federal legislation on much flimsier grounds than this, and has been so for at least 70 years.

Has Commerce (I can never remember whether it's spelled with a c or an s, but maybe that's because I read too much UKian lit) been over-extended?  I certainly think so.  But under currently settled law, Congress does have the right to regulate this.

Of course, the settled law may be that Congress can regulate almost anything at all under the interstate commerce clause. That does not mean that the settled interpretation is constitutionally sound. After all, Roe v. Wade is also settled, yet hardly sound; the same could be said at one time of Plessy v. Ferguson. In any event, the Rehnquist Court has thankfully taken a more appropriate approach to commerce clause cases, and has struck down the most egregious examples of congressional overreaching.

[Giant Saguaro]

Don't know if repulsive is the right word, but I am against same sex marriage and I do not think the government should recognize it.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

In any event, the Rehnquist Court has thankfully taken a more appropriate approach to commerce clause cases, and has struck down the most egregious examples of congressional overreaching.

You mean like they did in Ashcroft v. Raich?

[Emsworth]

In any event, the Rehnquist Court has thankfully taken a more appropriate approach to commerce clause cases, and has struck down the most egregious examples of congressional overreaching.

You mean like they did in Ashcroft v. Raich?

No I was referring of course to Morrison and Lopez. Raich was an abomination.

[A18]

Rehnquist, to his credit, voted against the majority in Raich. It was Scalia and Kennedy who 'abandoned ship,' so to speak.

[nclib]

Rehnquist, to his credit, voted against the majority in Raich. It was Scalia and Kennedy who 'abandoned ship,' so to speak.

Which justices were in the majority?

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Raich was an abomination.

You'll get no argument from me.

[A18]

All of the court's liberals (Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter, Breyer) and two conservatives (Kennedy, Scalia).